Westminster prayer room for all

Everyone should be able to pray at Westminster says a Jewish MP.  According to a report in the Jewish Telegraph, a planned prayer room is set to be designed for the Muslim faith only and MP for Ilford North Lee Scott wants it to be for any religious faith (even Jedi Knights???)

Jewish Telegraph reports:

Illford North MP Lee Scott said: "I believe any prayer room should be shared by all faiths - there shouldn't be segregation.

"Anybody wanting to pray at the Commons should be allowed to do so."

A House of Commons spokesman told the Jewish Telegraph that MPs of any religious denomination were free to pray in the building.

She said: "Throughout the year, individuals of any religious denomination can book meeting space for prayer and contemplation space if it is available.

"During Ramadan we make two areas available for Muslims, one in the Palace of Westminster and one in the seven Millbank offices."

Comments

[Lior]

The crypt of St Stephen's chapel has, traditionally, served Christian MPs at the Palace of Westminster and St Margaret's Church, built in the grounds of Westminster Abbey and the last church of note to be built in England (by Henry VIII) before the Reformation, has traditionally served as the "parish church of the Houses of Parliament". I don't know how Catholic members felt about using Protestant churches, but, since 1903, they have had Westminster Cathedral just up the road, if they needed a designated space. They certainly have never demanded a designated space.

The first non-Christian MPs date from the 1880s and were Hindu. Jewish MPs followed, although the Jewish presence in Britain's legislature was first in the House of Lords. (Why not start at the top?) No issue of designated space arose.

But it is only when we have Moslem elected MPs, that the issue of dedicated becomes an issue. I wonder why. So, Moslem MPs need and require a Moslem-only room? As far as I am aware, nothing in their tradition insists upon such segregation - and it certainly wasn't the case for the Moslem who shared my study in sixth form at school. (He'd ask me to turn the radio off and plonk his mat down on the floor and just get on with it whether I was there or not - oh, for the joys of more innocent times.)

I, for one, would feel a little more comfortable if the Moslem MPs were campaigning on behalf of all denominations to have their segregated spaces. Or, perhaps, insist on a space that both Jew and Moslem could share as an outward sign of their commitment to inter-faith understanding. But no.

Why should I feel annoyed at this? And annoyed I do.

For the simple reason that much of modern, Moslem experience in Britain echoes that of preceding Jewish immigrant experience. A yearning not to be seen as disloyal to the Crown and the body politic. A desire to be seen not as exotically alien but merely different. A longing to have one's humanity recognized whatever the outward trappings of one's faith and customs.

But herein lies the difference between the reaction to such needs: the Jews did not demand. They arrived - arguably poorer and certainly more oppressed and persecuted - with all they needed and demanded nothing of their hosts. They brought their mohel, the shochet, their bakers and their undertakers; they scrimped and saved and built their synagogues. They did not demand circumcision of the State and add burdens on the NHS - or its equivalent of the day, many hospitals being charitable foundations, i.e. funded on other's contrubitons - in order to avoid backstreet jobs. They did not express a contempt and seek to alter the ways of the local, indigenous population, however offended some may have been by native British ways. They founded their own charities, did not live on state hand-outs and demand that the infrastructure of national institutions change to accommodate them in the minutiae of their lives. They lay low, worked hard, knuckled down and got on with it. Some assimilated. Some effectively practised social segregation. But in the end, the Jews became - the Jews: for better or for worse, a part of British life. Issues of anti-Semitism have never gone away. But we never demanded.

Much of the resentment of the Moslem presence in Britain today derives from the instrinsic criticism and seemingly judgemental accusation of prejudice in nearly all the outpourings of Moslem demands of the British, who, whether Moslems understand this or not, remain one of the world's most tolerant of peoples. Indeed, in my experience, the more you criticise them for their apparent intolerance, the more they rightfully jib and become more intolerant.

In this demand, we do not see the stirrings of genuine multi-culturalism but a partisan and self-interested expression of accusation against what remains the majority. This is no way to go about achieving equality. Indeed, it will do the opposite.

Would that they had demanded a dedicated prayer space in order for the Palace of Westminster to follow the leading example of the one democracy in the world already to have acquiesced in their demands - that of the Parliament of Israel, the Knesset, where there is a mosque for Moslem MKs. Now, that really would have been progress.

Is this

[jamal]

So should Synagogues be made open for all? For instance, should Rastafarian’s be allowed inside to meditate with cannabis?

if no, then stop being hypocritical regarding the prayer room.

[Lior]

Synagogues are open to all.

A Rastafarian would not be allowed to smoke anything in a synagogue because that is against the rules of a synagogue. A Rastafarian should not smoke canabis anywhere, because that is against the law.

A convenient definition of the word hypocrisy is "insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that one does not really have." Kindly advise in what way I have been hypocritical. I have told you the truth as I see it. If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it, but do not resort to unnecessary and inaccurate name calling because you do not agree with me. I might also be tempted to ask you not to judge me in the rather dim light in which you clearly see. It puts you and your intolerance in a bad light.

I say this not to be gratuitously antagonistic but to point out the salient fact that name calling, in Jewish experience, denotes not only intolerance but leads inevitably to worse.

May I take this opportunity to point out that blowing innocent people up because one doesn't agree with them is also against the law.

Thank you